• USSBurritoTruck@startrek.websiteMEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think your assessment of the Luna-class and the Constitution III is accurate. They are entirely different, and the PIC production crew deciding that “refit” is basically just a word that the Starfleet Corps of Engineers will drop at a hat doesn’t change that.

    image

    The instagram log that explains the history of the Titan A claims that it was constructed “using much of the internal components” of the Luna-class ship, and that’s why it’s a refit, but that plans to build the new ship on the spaceframe of the old were set aside mid-way through.

    • passinglurker@startrek.websiteEnglish
      0·
      1 year ago

      Obviously the Neo-Connie space frame is a new build due to its size but I don’t see how that stops them from reusing the warp core, warp coils, computer core, etc.

      • USSBurritoTruck@startrek.websiteMEnglish
        3·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, absolutely. But that’s not really what the term refit means.

        And if that is a refit in Starfleet parlance – as the instagram log claims it is – than what prevents the Lamaar-class Voyager from also being a refit. Keep in mind that in “The Star Gazer”, Picard claimed that the new Stargazer was also a refit, and, according to Matalas, it was a refit of the Constellation-class Stargazer:

        "Like the TMP Enterprise, it’s a massively updated refit. I like to think of it as the story of the broom: If one day you replace the handle, and another day the brush, is it still the same broom? We thought of it as a vessel endlessly repaired and upgraded, brought in-line with current-future tech, so that somewhere underneath all the lights and polish are the bones of Picard’s original ship. Does it make sense? I don’t know. But I sure like the spirit of it."

        Now, personally, I would prefer to not take anything Terry Matalas says seriously, but a lot of people seem tot think he should be Trek’s new torchbearer, so there’s a good chance we’ll see a lot more of this nonsense in the future.

        • passinglurker@startrek.websiteEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          I see what you’re talking about, and don’t want to see them play so fast and loose with the notion as to take old noteworthy’s and heroships out of mothballs, triple the volume and call it a “refit” for nostalgia bait. But Trek does offer an interesting notion here that we don’t really have in real life in that there are core valuable parts of a ship more important and possibly more enduring than its hull. We don’t take reactors out of old aircraft carriers and submarines and drop them in new ships as some sort of legacy so the idea that it could arguably be done in star trek is novel.

          • USSBurritoTruck@startrek.websiteMEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            I don’t think either of us are arguing against the Federation reusing old components.

            The only point of contention is that you were sceptical that the Voyager A could be a refit of an Intrepid-class starship due to the size disparity, and my argument is that, even though I am personally not a fan, the was the current crop of Trek showrunners have decided to use the term size doesn’t really matter with regards to what is or is not a refit.